Evidence of meeting #5 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Just to clarify, in the bundle that the government handed over to the committee, that bundle will be given over to the law clerk with no redactions or exclusions except those justified under section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Is that correct?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Yes. I think the motion says that the redactions are only for cabinet confidence. That's explicit in the motion, is it not?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
It is, but again, the bundle of documents that the government gave the committee in response to Mr. Julian's July 7 motion will be handed over to the law clerk, and it will have no exclusions or redactions except those justified under section 69. Is that right?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I want to be careful, because.... I'm comfortable with the language that you've pitched to me—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Sorry, you're getting a little bit sneaky here. Tell me the answer to the question.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Look, I'm not trying to be sneaky. I think it was your motion. I plan to support it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Is that your interpretation, though? I just asked it three times now. Is that your interpretation, that all the documents that the government gave to this committee will be handed over to the law clerk unredacted except for those marked under section 69 of the Access to Information Act as cabinet secrets?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think the motion asks for that. One of the things I want to be careful about is that.... The committee is asking for things. The government is going to produce a response to the motion, and I'm not speaking for what the government is going to do.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Well, yes, you are. You're the parliamentary secretary, so you're a member of the executive. That's what you're doing here, so you are speaking for the government.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'm not speaking to the government's response to the motion. I haven't seen what the government has not yet done. That's my only concern here, Pierre.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay, so I'll just ask you one more time, then.
There's a bundle of documents that the committee got, and this motion will have the effect of having the government give the law clerk all those documents that were in that bundle unredacted and unexcluded, with the exception of those excluded or redacted on the grounds of section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Is that correct?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Let's give some time for people to think here.
Just on your point, Pierre, there's a bundle of documents that went to the law clerk at the committee's request. We never got them, and then we got them after the law clerk, just to be clear.
Mr. Fraser.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Look, Pierre, the only reservation I have is that we kind of went back and forth on the language of it. The government is going to produce this, and the law clerk is going to say, yes, you complied or didn't comply. I think if we fail as a government to satisfy what you've asked for, the motion protects your right to go immediately back to your privilege motion.
I only hesitate because it's not going to be me who is saying, here are the documents that are being produced. I don't want to give you information that I don't have, based on my speculation.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
But it's not speculation. You wouldn't be supporting this motion if you didn't think the government was going to comply with it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'm satisfied with the motion. I think the government will comply with it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Right. And your intention here is that all redactions and exclusions, other than those justified under section 69 of the Access to Information Act, will be removed in the submission that the government makes to the parliamentary law clerk, yes or no?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Pierre, I feel like you're grilling me as the witness who's producing these documents. I think that's the whole purpose of having the law clerk come, to tell us if the government has complied. I'm comfortable with the motion that you sent to me before this meeting. I would like to let the motion dictate that, not to have me make representations on behalf of someone else who's going to be complying with this motion.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The motion and some late amendments to it, I might add....
Mr. Julian.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This is actually a key question, Mr. Fraser. I understand you can't necessarily reply for the government, but it almost sounds like what will happen, or what could happen, is that there will be a new list of pages of cabinet confidences that are excluded from a new batch.
The question Mr. Poilievre asked was very specific. On the 5,000 pages that we got, some of them excluded certain pages from cabinet confidences. Now you're saying that there will be a new batch prepared. Ultimately, it's quite possible, because you're not the one doing the redaction, that we may find a different list of cabinet confidences—in other words, different pages excluded.
This is really the crux of this particular motion. It only works if it's the same 5,000 pages with the same cabinet exclusions. It doesn't work at all if we're talking about a new mix of papers. From what I gather from your responses.... You're honest; you're saying you can't guarantee that. My concern is that we're potentially having the documents redacted a second time, with potentially pages added to the cabinet confidences that were excluded the first time.
That was the direct question that Mr. Poilievre asked that you can't answer. I'm not criticizing you for that. You're being honest. But I am worried about that fact. I think that's the crux of the concern around this motion. If we're talking about two different piles of paper, we're no further ahead in terms of getting to the bottom of what we requested in July.